Even if one out of every four Marines would shoot American citizens, what this survey revealed was

Well i often see people waiting for the army to stand up to the police - looks more like civil war would erupt.

modernhistoryproject.org...

a snippet:

The survey was concluded with this:

"46. The U.S. Government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty (30) day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizen groups refuse to turn over their firearms. Consider the following statement: I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. Government."
After the news of this survey surfaced in The Spotlight, and the November, 1994 issue of American Legion Magazine, it was later reported that it was part of a soldier's Master Thesis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and did not "reflect any government program." However, the February, 1994 issue of Modern Gun magazine reported that a similar survey had been given to some Navy SEALS.

The thesis, called Peacekeeping and U.N. Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion, had been classified until March, 1995, when it was approved for public dissemination............... And, in regard to the infamous question 46, of the 264 Marines who responded, 185 said they would be opposed to firing at Americans (with 127 strongly opposing), and 79 said they would be willing to shoot if ordered (with 23 strongly affirming).

Even if one out of every four Marines would shoot American citizens, what this survey revealed was that, for the most part, our military probably could not be relied on to act as a cohesive force to fire upon the citizens of this country.

So basically to ensure there is no unit breakdown you ask the question and all those who say 'yes sir' (as they are highly trained to do) get put in those units whose job will to be murder their own citizens.

a reply to: johnb

Easy as pie....

I can also guarantee, if shtf....there would be many more that would comply. Firing on it's own citizens....it's just a question of right circumstances.

a reply to: johnb

Well that is all fine and dandy. I just hope that if the day should ever come,I'm not standing in front of several of these fools that would follow orders.

What were the Nuremberg trials about again?

a reply to: johnb

This makes a good case to start up state militias which anyone can do, including armed militias. But they have to be done legally and carefully. There are a few good web sites out there that tell all the do's and don'ts as well as train how to avoid government infiltration and many other things that are all still LEGAL and patriotically sound. For how long it remains that way is anyone's guess.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You are right. Merceneries welcome....since we are a sorry bunch...there will be no shortage of volunteers.

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: johnb

Well that is all fine and dandy. I just hope that if the day should ever come,I'm not standing in front of several of these fools that would follow orders.

What were the Nuremberg trials about again?

Trials don't bring back the dead, they serve to make the survivors feel they done something. In this case, I would be willing to bet those soldiers who fired on American citizens would never see the inside of a court room. Considering this was almost 20 years ago, I wonder how the balance has changed and was it for the better.

this survey is a decade old, you can bet that with the conditioning in training that the figures are much higher now.

I do hope for everyone's sake those training manuals, surveys, indoctrinations are not put to the test, bad day at black rock really does not cover it at all.

So basically to ensure there is no unit breakdown you ask the question and all those who say 'yes sir' (as they are highly trained to do) get put in those units whose job will to be murder their own citizens.

Good point.
You might also wonder whether the respondents perception of the survey and how it might affect their career played a part in the results.

a reply to: johnb

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

Did any one think that if martial law were for some reason be declared and some citizen idiot started to shoot at the soldiers, you would expect them not to shoot back?

In other words, what if they were fired upon first?

a reply to: PLAYERONE01

What conditioning? Can I get a source on military conditioning to kill U.S. citizens? I served for 10 years and there is no such conditioning. If anything the newer members joining the armed forces seemed to be more prone to disagree with the higher up's if they felt they were wrong. That's compared to when I first joined in 2001 right before the 9/11 attacks. The source that was cited seems like a junk website anyways. I'm sure there are a few wacko's out there, but I guarantee this situation wouldn't ever happen. Most would go and protect their families, before following ridiculous orders to kill ordinary citizens. The sad part is we serve(d) to protect the citizens of the United States, not turn on them in a time of crisis. If anything the people in the armed forces are starting to wake up and realize how corrupt our government is.

a reply to: amicktd

I agree with everything you say above.

Not once in my thirty plus years of service have I ever been given such a survey, nor has any one in my many Chain of Command ever asked me such a question.

We would occasionally talk about such a scenario over beers though and it was always unanimous that we would never fire upon our fellow citizens...unless our fellow citizens started firing at us first. Then it was also unanimous that we would make that individual rue the day he/she was born.

Most people don't like being shot at, regardless of who they are.

a reply to: johnb

If you notice, the question wasn't even one of defending against out of control citizens.

If it were, the question would have read like this;

"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. Government, and use those firearms against the Government or Agencies."

It isn't even asking them if they'd fire on civilians who are firing at them or at the police, it only asks would they shoot civilians who simply refuse to hand over their rightfully owned and held guns...no mention of the civilians using those guns against anyone, yet some would still shoot anyway?

That's nuts.

Under those conditions, i suppose the question could just as well have been "Would you fire on pregnant US citizens who refuse or resist Government orders to have an abortion?"

Same thing...still stating a willingness to fire on citizens for nothing more violent than disobeying an anti-constitutional law, as every good American ought to do anyway.

Reassuring though, that the vast majority told them there was no way they would fire on their own people.

a reply to: MysterX

Yea, it is a pretty vaguely worded question. I also wonder that if such a survey were ever actually published that it could be used to root out the blatant nutjobs within the military.

a reply to: TDawgRex

Thank you for your service! I really gets under my skin, that some will give it all to protect this country and it's citizens. Yet, SOME like to accuse us of murderers or spew some crap like this. They haven't done anything for the country, but sit on this website talk all tough. I just wish they would realize that 99% of the armed forces would do just about anything for anybody if it was within their capability.

originally posted by: TDawgRex
a reply to: johnb

I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

Did any one think that if martial law were for some reason be declared and some citizen idiot started to shoot at the soldiers, you would expect them not to shoot back?

In other words, what if they were fired upon first?

That was my thought as well. All is well and good until the bullets start flying.

I personally think based on what Obama has said that a internal army which excludes the armed forces is already being organized. Look at the militarization of the police dept around the country. Armored vehichles, swat teams serving civil warrants, etc.

Wait! The military is made of humans just like every other organization on the planet? Stop the presses! I really didn't need this survey to make the remarks in the OP. In fact I've made them on these very forums before. I've been certain that if the military were to be ordered to fire on Americans, that a civil war would break out.

No need for military intervention, they can continue to fight for our corporate interests abroad.

They could just have the local cops shoot the citizens, they've been pretty good at it lately.

They could send in the National Guard, or any government agency with weapons for that matter (like most of them), to shoot the 2nd amendment types.

Keep the military fighting everywhere else, have the local boys shoot their own citizens.

a reply to: amicktd

you sound like a vet. as a veteran of the Marines i can tell you that this subject has come up in the field when we were bored of talking about dicks and boobs. no one i have ever served with was anything but steadfast against shooting our citizens. we swore to defend the constitution, most would rather war with the politicians who issued the order. god bless america

If it ever reached this point, Im pretty sure most people would not be standing there with a gun waiting to be fired on. Im going Gorilla style tactics on whomever is violating my rights. It would only take a few casualties for the army to realize they cant just walk around shooting whoever has a gun or owns a gun. Vietnam, Iraq, comes to mind. A sniper is one of the best weapons ever used by any side, slows advances, puts fear in the soldier. the only thing a sniper would have to fear, is the militarys technolgy, Heat signatures, night vision, air power, artillery,etc... It would not be a cake walk for anyone involved, I hope it never comes to this, because it would be a blood bath on both sides.